Judge Allows Cameras In Court For Pilot Project

ST. CLOUD (WCCO) — Chances are you’ve seen real court cases, like the OJ Simpson murder trial, on TV before. In fact, news cameras are allowed into courtrooms in most states, including Wisconsin and Iowa – but not Minnesota. That is, however, until Friday.

It’s part of a pilot project ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Stearns County Judge Fred Grunke allowed a WCCO-TV crew and a still photographer from the St. Cloud Times into record a civil court hearing.

This is a motion for a retrial in the case of Froseth and Imdieke versus Avon State Bank. The case involves a Nigerian money scam, and Avon State Bank’s involvement in it.

A jury decided in January in favor of Gerald Von Korff’s clients, but Michael Ford, the attorney for the bank, is asking the judge for a retrial.

Judge Grunke is taking Friday’s arguments into account and will decide whether they’ll go to court again, or not.

In a statement saying why he would allow cameras to cover today’s proceeding, Judge Grunke wrote, “It is demeaning to suggest that the same candor, professionalism and zealous representation that prevailed during the trial will dissolve under the light of media coverage.”

WCCO-TV hopes that other judges will agree to the idea and that we will be able to bring you more stories from the court in the future.

@Perry
Considering all the media circuses that have have occurred in the history of American juris prudence your comment concerning the Heisenberg effect is right on.

It’s not that I am against cameras in the court room but past and ongoing media history bear out the fact that the cameras do have an effect on the proceedings. That’s where the Heisenberg effect becomes apropo to the proceeding at hand. In today’s cyberspace world and instant access that’s where the uncertainty principle rears its Hydra-like heads affecting the outcomes.

The visual media has a responsibility to maintain a level of decorum and dignity to its trial coverages. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in many instances. In fact, if cameras in the courtrooms were a constant entity without editorial commentaries, legal play-by-play analysis, and ‘sporting’ replays the general viewing audience might find the proceedings of justice boring. A legal proceeding is not a ‘media’ event nor a reality-show genre program.

Cameras in the courtroom are great but only if they are used for informative reporting purposes. The commercial voyeurism and inflammatory fragmentation of the judicial process that the media probably is liable to do is scary. That’s the uncertainty of the this issue.

long overdue. Congratulations to Judge Grunke for his leadership. He is bringing Minnesota courts closer to the successful use of cameras in courtrooms in some 39 states. Minnesota’s progressive approach to many issues is regrettably far behind on this one.